共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 78 毫秒
1.
Timothy Endicott 《Ratio juris》2020,33(1):6-23
I approach the identification of the principles of legal interpretation through a discussion of an important but largely forgotten strand in our legal heritage: the idea (and at some points in English law, the rule) that the interpretation of legislation is to be done by the lawmaker. The idea that authentic interpretation is interpretation by the lawmaker united the Roman emperors Constantine and Justinian with Bracton, Aquinas, King James I of England, Hobbes, and Bentham. Already in the early 17th century, a new modern approach was emerging in England. The modern approach separates the interpretive power from the legislative power, and allocates the interpretive power to an independent court. I argue that there are some cogent, general considerations in favour of the modern approach. But it is worth identifying the elements of good sense that made it seem that the interpretive power ought to be reserved for the lawmaker. And it is worth identifying the drawbacks in the modern approach; I argue that they are highly relevant to the complex question of how judges ought to interpret legislation. 相似文献
2.
3.
当前我国刑法学中的形式解释论与实质解释论之争不是事实论与价值论之争,而是发生在价值论内部,涉及如何适用价值判断的问题。检视这场争论可以发现,双方不仅在基本范畴的指涉与运用上较为混乱,还存在误读、曲解甚至虚构对方观点的现象,并且双方所宣称的立场往往与其实际做法不尽一致;此外,实质论者在论证逻辑上也有值得商榷之处。双方存在若干重要分歧,缘起于对刑事法治基本任务的不同定位。我国刑法学中的形式解释论与实质解释论之争,在性质上具有不同于德日相关争论之处。 相似文献
4.
Tomasz Stawecki 《International Journal for the Semiotics of Law》2012,25(4):505-535
Certain works in the most recent Polish constitutional law literature suggest that there is acceptance of the principle or the concept of autonomous interpretation of a constitution (autonomy of interpretation of constitutional terms). The Constitutional Tribunal also makes reference to this in numerous rulings. Paradoxically, however, that concept is not very popular in legal theory. It might seem that Polish legal theoreticians and philosophers do not appreciate the concept of interpretation of a constitution devised through practice with the support of constitutional law doctrine. It might, however, mean that opinions on autonomous interpretation of Polish Constitution are nothing more than rhetorical arguments formulated ad hoc not a coherent concept or a theory. This text is an attempt to analyse this concept and its potential in discussions surrounding application of the Polish Constitution. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
区分扩张解释与类推适用的路径新探 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
如何区分扩张解释与类推解释,是贯彻罪刑法定原则的客观需要。本文主张以"刑法正文"———"体系化的文义",作为区分扩张解释与类推适用的标准。在刑法正文范围内揭示需要解释事项的体系化文义的,是解释;反之,是类推。与"字面含义"、"真实含义"、"通常含义"、"可能具有的含义"等概念不同的是,"刑法正文"是一个结构性概念,表现为从"点"到"面"再到法律体系之整"体",它首先着眼于某一个具体的刑法分则条文,并进一步地关注与这一分则条文具有密切联系的若干个分则条文,然后是刑法分则以至整部刑法,乃至于整个法律体系范围内,发现待解释事项的"体系化的文义"。 相似文献
8.
立法解释的疑问——以刑法立法解释为中心 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
真正意义上的立法解释,是指在刑法施行过程中,立法机关对发生歧义的规定所作的解释.但是,这种立法解释不符合法治原则的要求,不符合罪刑法定原则,不符合解释的必要性,不符合客观解释目标,也不是发现法律真实含义的有效途径. 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
Law and Philosophy - 相似文献
12.
宪法解释的可能性 总被引:5,自引:0,他引:5
FAN Ya-feng 《政法论坛》2005,(3)
中国宪法逐渐由文本融入社会现实,成为民众生活模式的一部分。因此需探讨宪法解释的必要性和可能性。需要以德国宪法解释模式为基础整合美国模式,形成中国的宪法解释模式。宪法解释由学说、操作、规范、程序构成,而生命体、约法、母法、根本法等宪法隐喻形成宪法解释的意义网络,宪法解释学有助于理解中国立宪政治的民情、生成对于宪法的信心乃至信仰、推动中国宪政的程序理性建设。 相似文献
13.
14.
形式解释论与实质解释论:事实与理念之展开 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
我国目前的刑事司法实践完全没有深深陷入法律形式主义的泥坑,因而需要采用实质解释论加以拯救,而恰恰是深深陷入了法律实质主义的泥坑,由此逾越了罪刑法定原则的樊篱,因而需要引入形式解释论加以纠正。在某种意义上,形式解释论与实质解释论之争不仅是构成要件论之争,甚至是刑法机能论之争、刑法观之争。在我国当下社会中,法治规则意识尚未完全建立。在这种前法治时代,我国应该大力弘扬规则功利主义。 相似文献
15.
论刑法解释的边界和路径——以扩张解释与类推适用的区分为中心 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
只有划清扩张解释与类推适用的界限,才能克服刑法解释的恣意性,否则,就会以扩张解释之名行类推适用之实,造成比具有严格限制的类推制度更大的破坏罪刑法定主义的危险。在是否处于刑法条文用语可能的含义之中、是否具有一般公民的预测可能性、是否采用了符合形式逻辑的推论和是否从罪刑法定主义的理念出发这四个方面,扩张解释都与类推适用存在构造上的差异。展开合理的扩张解释时,应当遵循一定的操作路径:首先,需要判断所要解决的事项是否属于扩张解释的对象;其次,需要根据一般公民的预测可能性对刑法条文用语的通常含义进行正向扩展,然后根据处罚的必要性进行反向限缩;再次,需要通过法律商谈来检验解释结论的性质;最后,需要通过一种程序性方式,来终局性地解消对实体性问题的分歧。 相似文献
16.
我国刑法学界近年来形成了形式解释论与实质解释论之争。通过对形式解释与实质解释的概念及双方的争点进行梳理和辨析,初步认为形式解释与实质解释虽然在表面上争论激烈,但双方在刑法解释论上可能都或多或少地存在一些毕其功于一役的偏执追求,将解释与判断压缩、混淆在一起,从而对刑法解释这一极其复杂精深的学问做了过于简单化的处理。从罪刑法定与构成要件论等刑法根基出发,提倡一元双层形式解释论,即通过将解释与判断分阶层处理,整合形式与实质两方面的资源,使形式与实质因素各得其所,从而完成对构成要件符合性的整体判断。 相似文献
17.
18.
自20世纪80年代初至90年代中期,斯坦利·费什和罗纳德·德沃金进行了一场长达十多年的法律解释论战。该论战从德沃金的"连锁小说"隐喻开始,内容涉及法律规范的意义来源、文本和读者之间的关系、解释行为之限制甚至法律解释的道德性等更深层次的问题。费什从文艺批评和文学解释的角度对德沃金提出的批评和反驳极富启发性,他认为解释总是先在地渗透于我们的思考之中,受我们自身的镶嵌性背景所约束。这一观点无疑有助于丰富和深化人们对于法律解释性质的认识,对于正确看待解释者的自由裁量,增进对解释者解释合理性的信赖具有重要意义。 相似文献
19.
一般来说,当然解释是法条的适用方法,但在刑法中,当然解释应当作为一种解释理由。举重以明轻,是就出罪、处罚轻而言;举轻以明重,是就入罪、处罚重而言。当然解释的依据是事物的本质与法条的旨趣。由于刑法并不禁止有利于被告人的类推解释,故在适用举重以明轻的原理得出有利于被告人的解释结论时,不需要刑法的明文规定,但不能将刑法的处罚漏洞作为举重以明轻的根据。罪刑法定原则禁止不利于被告人的类推解释,故在适用举轻以明重的原理得出不利于被告人的解释结论后,还要求案件事实符合刑法规范,但是,不能将对案件事实的缩小评价当作对刑法规范的类推解释。 相似文献
20.
Izabela Skoczeń 《International Journal for the Semiotics of Law》2016,29(3):615-633
In this paper I will tackle three issues. First, I aim to briefly outline the backbone of semantic minimalism, while focusing on the idea of ‘liberal truth conditions’ developed by Emma Borg in her book ‘Minimal Semantics’. Secondly, I will provide an account of the three principal views in legal interpretation: intentionalism, textualism and purposivism. All of them are based on a common denominator labelled by lawyers ‘literal meaning’. In the paper I suggest a novel way of viewing this common denominator as almost identical to the Borgian ‘liberal truth conditions’, at least at a conceptual level. In the third section I will focus on the conceptual similarities between the two ideas. I intend to depict that, although legal theorists do not admit it explicitly, they treat literal legal meaning as minimal propositional content that can be ascribed liberal truth conditions. There are two main objections to liberal truth conditions: their under-determinacy and unintuitive character. Both objections can be applied to ‘literal meaning’. However, the idea of liberal truth conditions gives an adequate account of what lawyers call literal meaning and is helpful in explaining the mechanism of understanding of provisions and reasons leading to the necessity of statutory interpretation. 相似文献